I first want to give a quick but deeply sincere "thank you" to all of the moderators and judges for making this forum possible and the participants
and readers for making the debate worthwhile. I hope all of you have as much fun reading my contributions, as I do creating them. I would also like to
mention how truly honored I am to be ironing out this interesting topic with my opponent, Skyfloating, a member and moderator whom I have admired for
some very well thought out and intellectually stimulating contributions.
Admittedly, this subject matter has not really entered my radar screen all that much, at least until being handed this topic, as I tend to only put
weight in the things that can be explained through science. Mysticism to me, has always seemed far removed from rational explanation and it wasn't
until I recently began looking into the subject, as a result of this debate topic, that I'm seeing it more as a philosophy that could very well and
eventually be incorporated into a science, thus explained rationally. I'm now starting to realize that it isn't because science can't prove its
existence, rather it's that we can't yet explain its existence through science, a big difference.
Now, without further adieu, I'd like to get down to business.
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the
ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not
understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it
does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." --Albert Einstein
What does Edgar Cayce, Mozart, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso and Henry Ford all have in common with each other? Apparently, they have all been able
to tap into a body of knowledge that transcends our physical plain of being, whether it be through a meditative process, such as the case with Edgar
Cayce or simply through intuition and inspiration, such as the case with great artists and creative thinkers. No, I'm not saying that Albert Einstein
was anything but the brilliant and clever intellectual that gave us the theory of relativity, rather I'm hinting at the inspiration that drove his
intellectual force. That inspiration had to come from somewhere. In fact, inspiration to some literally means "the breath of god". You will often
hear creative thinkers say that their inspiration just came to them and in fact, when Paul McCartney was asked about the inspiration for his songs, he
answered by saying that it came out of thin air.
When we think of the collective unconscious, the akashic record or a shared body of knowledge that exists outside of our physical realm, we often
think of mystics, prophets, psychics or the spiritually elevated, however we often overlook the more practical, mundane and common evidence supporting
such a notion. Sure, psychics such as Edgar Cayce seemingly define a more clear cut approach to accessing a universally shared body of knowledge, but
just about everyone experiences and interacts with this collective unconscious without even being aware of or understanding the principal processes.
We are so used to certain aspects of our existence that we often overlook or ignore the mechanics and we seem to take the details for granted.
To draw on an outside comparison, we all send emails everyday in one form or another, yet how often do we think about the mechanics of the data
transfer process instead of just expecting our email to show up in the inbox of those we are corresponding with? We are so used to sending the email,
that we completely ignore the mechanical process.
When a baby comes out of his or her mother's womb, how does s/he know to suckle the mother's breasts? Instinct or innate behavior, right? Sure,
instinct is a fixed action pattern that is stimulated by an innate releasing mechanism of a neural network but this only explains why we do certain
things, not how we do them, as instinctual behavior isn't learned behavior. It's not something that we can draw on from past experiences, so where
does this instinctual knowledge originate?
Let's look away from the human realm for a moment and peer into the life of a Monarch butterfly, a creature that migrates across the North American
continent, however unlike most other migratory animals, the North American Monarch butterfly doesn't complete its full migration cycle within one
generation, rather it takes several generations for the full migratory cycle to be completed. Somehow, each generation of butterfly knows where the
cycle was left off, even though this knowledge isn't based on prior experience or learned behavior. If these creatures are drawing from a shared body
of knowledge, then it isn't that big of a leap to suggest that we humans can also access this "library" of knowledge. The case can also be made for
schools of fish and flocks of birds who seem to maneuver in perfect harmony with each other, that would seem to suggest a shared body of knowledge or
a collective unconscious is guiding their behavior. The difference between us humans and butterflies, fish or birds is most likely that our brains are
capable of storing more learned behaviors so we have evolved away from easily accessing this collective unconscious to rely almost exclusively on our
learned knowledge from prior experiences.
A lot of people may argue against a collective unconscious by suggesting that science has not yet proven it, though science hasn't disproven it
either and there is supporting evidence all around us (as mentioned above). It is only recently that we have discovered the invisible force of
electromagnetism and electromagnetic (radio) waves, yet before their discoveries, nobody really believed that they existed either. The same can also
be said for the other three known fundamental interactions of nature (gravity and both of the strong and weak nuclear forces). What if there is a
fifth fundamental interaction of nature, a collective unconscious? The reason that we have not yet scientifically discovered this force is because we
simply don't have the technology to measure this interaction and instead, we can only experience the resulting symptoms, such as psychic power or
intuition.
All in all, the case for a collective unconscious or a shared body of knowledge that transcends space and time is pretty good and just because our
methods of applied science can't yet explain the mechanisms or model of such a force, it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In fact if
it doesn't exist, then we have some serious questions to ask about the miracles performed by people such as Edgar Cayce and the phenomenon of
intuition.
--airspoon
Round 2. Airspoon vs Skyfloating: Collective Unconscious/Akashic Record, page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times
Topic started on 12-11-2010 @ 01:12 AM by The Vagabond
The topic for this debate is "There is a shared body of human knowledge which transcends space and time, such as the "collective unconscious" or
"akashic record".”
Airspoon will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Skyfloating will be arguing the "Con" position.
The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.
All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
Airspoon will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Skyfloating will be arguing the "Con" position.
The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.
All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
reply posted on 16-11-2010 @ 02:12 PM by airspoon
I would first like to point out that this is not the typical "Mystic vs. Skeptic debate", as you need not believe in mystical powers to believe that
there could be a collective unconscious or shared body of knowledge that transcends space and time. The typical "Mystic vs. Skeptic debate" would be
one that debates the method of access to this shared body of knowledge, not whether it exists. I just want to reiterate the subject of this debate,
which is whether a shared body of knowledge exists, such as a collective unconscious, not whether we can take full advantage of it and harness this
force at will.
Moving along, just because there are scam-artists in a particular field, certainly doesn't mean that the field itself is a scam. Just look at the medical industry which is ripe with scam-artists, though that certainly doesn't mean that all medical professionals are selling snake oil (this judgment is not reserved for the pharmaceutical industry). We can also look at the conspiracy or UFO fields to see scammers at work, though that certainly doesn't mean that there aren't any conspiracies or UFOs. In fact, it would be safe to suggest that scammers and con-artists need at least a seedling of truth in which to sprout their tree of deceit. The sad truth of the matter is that there are scam-artists in almost every field, to include the applied sciences, ufology and conspiracy. Shall we disregard those respective subjects, based on the profitable industries that have sprung up around them?
Also, you seem to be focusing on its usefulness or benefit and burden to society, which matters not in the case for its existence. Whether or not the industry that has sprang up around the notion is a detriment to society, is irrelevant to whether it exists. As far as it being proven, very little of what we know about this universe has been proven. There is still much about the universe that we don't yet understand and some things that may even contradict what we think we know, so just because something isn't able to be explained through our current scientific model, certainly doesn't mean that it never will. In fact, many ideas were considered silly before science was able to adequately explain them and many scientific discoveries started from a philosophical seed.
Furthermore, I need not argue in favor of any industry that has arisen around the idea and my argument isn't solely based on an ability to harness this collective unconscious force in the form of psychic or mystical powers, either. Instead, my argument is that a collective body of knowledge does exist and that we indirectly interact with it on a subconscious level through our intuition, inspiration and innate behaviors, all traits that point to the existence of such a body of knowledge. I'm focusing on a much more subtle and common approach to the collective unconscious, such as a "gut feeling". Have you ever had a gut feeling?
I'm a veteran paratrooper and over the years, I have learned to both trust and rely on my gut feeling, over what my "brain" telling me, so to speak. It has saved my life on more than one occasion and I have found that this gut feeling is often much more accurate than what my head is telling me. Where is this "gut feeling" coming from? Is it coming from the same place that artists and creative thinkers subconsciously draw from for their inspiration, a collective unconscious? I believe so. It seems that just about everyone indirectly interacts with this collective unconscious, through intuition and inspiration though most, if not all, aren't able to harness this force and use it at will. I think there are different degrees to which various people are able to interact with this collective unconscious. Some people are more creative or intuitive than others and it is often these people who become more successful at whatever they are doing. There seems to be a direct correlation between success or productiveness and those who know how to listen to and follow their gut-feeling, intuition or creative inspiration.
No, our current science can't explain the migratory "miracles" of these butterflies and the scientists who study them are stumped as to how they pull the whole thing off, especially with their lack of any relatively viable brain. Monarch butterflies aren't limited to a set pattern of behaviors, which would be required to satisfy the theory of genetic memory in regards to this creature. For instance, these butterflies don't just fly "north" or "south" and they aren't following the sun either (or any other apparent beacon). There have been instances where researchers displaced a few tagged butterflies in states far east or west of their normal migration route, yet these butterflies seem to fly in whatever direction will get them to their destination, while avoiding complicated obstacles, instead of just one predetermined direction, such as "south" or following some beacon, such as the sun. They do this without prior experience, even of the past generations. Also, these butterflies don't complete the migration cycle in one or even two generations. Instead, it takes several and the ensuing generations always know where the preceding generations left off. In order for genetic memory to be at play here, there would have to be some kind of set pattern, which research and the tagging program has thus far dispelled.
No, I'm only claiming that this could be a possibility or that you may or may not have the potential ability to harness this force at will, though regardless of whether or not we -as humans- can consciously tap into this body of knowledge and use it to our liking, we still experience it indirectly through intuition, inspiration and innate behavior, on a subconscious level.
To take your question quite literally, no, I don't think that at this time, you possess the ability to tap into and harness the collective unconscious, though I do think the potential may or may not be there.
No, I can't share the exact method of harnessing the collective unconscious to use it at will, as I'm not claiming that I am capable of doing so at this time. Again, I'm only claiming that with our current understanding, the vast majority of us can only interact with this body of knowledge on an indirect and subconscious level, through intuition, inspiration and the like.
No, not with the means and tools at my disposal now or in the immediate future. No claims have been made as to my ability in harnessing this collective unconscious and just because I personally can't do it (on a conscious level) or just because most people don't know how or don't possess the ability to consciously tap into the universal library of knowledge, doesn't mean that it isn't possible or that a collective unconscious doesn't exist. Let's look at it this way, most people don't possess the means or know how to build a nuclear weapon, though that certainly doesn't mean that nuclear energy doesn't exist.
By itself, no, however if what looks like elephant dung with little pink hairs sticking out of it were discovered on Mars, then the answer would most certainly be yes. Truth be told, until we have the means to scientifically measure something or evidence to prove or disprove its validity, it has an equal footing of probability as anything else. It is a classic example of the "turtles all the way down!" argument, though with a significant twist.
#1: How do you think that the Monarch butterfly can navigate to its respective destination, while avoiding large obstacles such as the Gulf of Mexico or large bodies of water (even when moved from its original migratory route) if neither the butterfly itself or its ancestors have traveled the route?
#2: Do you believe that our current understanding of science can adequately explain the entire universe, thus if our scientific model can't explain something, it must not exist?
#3: Do you agree that creative people who draw from creative inspiration, often succeed over those who don't or can't, when solving problems?
#4: Where do you think that intuition or creative inspiration comes from?
#5: When and if you get a "gut feeling" about something unfamiliar, where do you think this knowledge originates and how?
--airspoon
Moving along, just because there are scam-artists in a particular field, certainly doesn't mean that the field itself is a scam. Just look at the medical industry which is ripe with scam-artists, though that certainly doesn't mean that all medical professionals are selling snake oil (this judgment is not reserved for the pharmaceutical industry). We can also look at the conspiracy or UFO fields to see scammers at work, though that certainly doesn't mean that there aren't any conspiracies or UFOs. In fact, it would be safe to suggest that scammers and con-artists need at least a seedling of truth in which to sprout their tree of deceit. The sad truth of the matter is that there are scam-artists in almost every field, to include the applied sciences, ufology and conspiracy. Shall we disregard those respective subjects, based on the profitable industries that have sprung up around them?
Also, you seem to be focusing on its usefulness or benefit and burden to society, which matters not in the case for its existence. Whether or not the industry that has sprang up around the notion is a detriment to society, is irrelevant to whether it exists. As far as it being proven, very little of what we know about this universe has been proven. There is still much about the universe that we don't yet understand and some things that may even contradict what we think we know, so just because something isn't able to be explained through our current scientific model, certainly doesn't mean that it never will. In fact, many ideas were considered silly before science was able to adequately explain them and many scientific discoveries started from a philosophical seed.
Furthermore, I need not argue in favor of any industry that has arisen around the idea and my argument isn't solely based on an ability to harness this collective unconscious force in the form of psychic or mystical powers, either. Instead, my argument is that a collective body of knowledge does exist and that we indirectly interact with it on a subconscious level through our intuition, inspiration and innate behaviors, all traits that point to the existence of such a body of knowledge. I'm focusing on a much more subtle and common approach to the collective unconscious, such as a "gut feeling". Have you ever had a gut feeling?
I'm a veteran paratrooper and over the years, I have learned to both trust and rely on my gut feeling, over what my "brain" telling me, so to speak. It has saved my life on more than one occasion and I have found that this gut feeling is often much more accurate than what my head is telling me. Where is this "gut feeling" coming from? Is it coming from the same place that artists and creative thinkers subconsciously draw from for their inspiration, a collective unconscious? I believe so. It seems that just about everyone indirectly interacts with this collective unconscious, through intuition and inspiration though most, if not all, aren't able to harness this force and use it at will. I think there are different degrees to which various people are able to interact with this collective unconscious. Some people are more creative or intuitive than others and it is often these people who become more successful at whatever they are doing. There seems to be a direct correlation between success or productiveness and those who know how to listen to and follow their gut-feeling, intuition or creative inspiration.
The answers to your five socratic questions:
#1: Do you agree that your example of the behavior of the monarch butterfly, can be explained with genetic memory?
No, our current science can't explain the migratory "miracles" of these butterflies and the scientists who study them are stumped as to how they pull the whole thing off, especially with their lack of any relatively viable brain. Monarch butterflies aren't limited to a set pattern of behaviors, which would be required to satisfy the theory of genetic memory in regards to this creature. For instance, these butterflies don't just fly "north" or "south" and they aren't following the sun either (or any other apparent beacon). There have been instances where researchers displaced a few tagged butterflies in states far east or west of their normal migration route, yet these butterflies seem to fly in whatever direction will get them to their destination, while avoiding complicated obstacles, instead of just one predetermined direction, such as "south" or following some beacon, such as the sun. They do this without prior experience, even of the past generations. Also, these butterflies don't complete the migration cycle in one or even two generations. Instead, it takes several and the ensuing generations always know where the preceding generations left off. In order for genetic memory to be at play here, there would have to be some kind of set pattern, which research and the tagging program has thus far dispelled.
Another unsolved mystery is how Monarchs find the overwintering sites each year. Somehow they know their way, even though the butterflies returning to Mexico or California each fall are the great-great-grandchildren of the butterflies that left the previous spring. No one knows exactly how their homing system works; it is another of the many unanswered questions in the butterfly world.Source: www.monarchwatch.org...
#2: Do you claim I can tap into the collective unconscious and "Download" Information - such as learning a Language without having to study, finding the whereabouts of Archaeological artefacts, or learning about Extraterrestrials on other Planets?
No, I'm only claiming that this could be a possibility or that you may or may not have the potential ability to harness this force at will, though regardless of whether or not we -as humans- can consciously tap into this body of knowledge and use it to our liking, we still experience it indirectly through intuition, inspiration and innate behavior, on a subconscious level.
To take your question quite literally, no, I don't think that at this time, you possess the ability to tap into and harness the collective unconscious, though I do think the potential may or may not be there.
#3: If your answer to Question 2 is affirmative, would you mind sharing the exact method of achieving these things with us, so that I can test their usefulness?
No, I can't share the exact method of harnessing the collective unconscious to use it at will, as I'm not claiming that I am capable of doing so at this time. Again, I'm only claiming that with our current understanding, the vast majority of us can only interact with this body of knowledge on an indirect and subconscious level, through intuition, inspiration and the like.
#4: Could you tap into "that "field" and find out what I am wearing right now and share this information with the readers?
No, not with the means and tools at my disposal now or in the immediate future. No claims have been made as to my ability in harnessing this collective unconscious and just because I personally can't do it (on a conscious level) or just because most people don't know how or don't possess the ability to consciously tap into the universal library of knowledge, doesn't mean that it isn't possible or that a collective unconscious doesn't exist. Let's look at it this way, most people don't possess the means or know how to build a nuclear weapon, though that certainly doesn't mean that nuclear energy doesn't exist.
#5: Since science has not yet disproven that there are pink elephants on Mars, does that mean it is probable that there are?
By itself, no, however if what looks like elephant dung with little pink hairs sticking out of it were discovered on Mars, then the answer would most certainly be yes. Truth be told, until we have the means to scientifically measure something or evidence to prove or disprove its validity, it has an equal footing of probability as anything else. It is a classic example of the "turtles all the way down!" argument, though with a significant twist.
Five socratic questions of my own:
#1: How do you think that the Monarch butterfly can navigate to its respective destination, while avoiding large obstacles such as the Gulf of Mexico or large bodies of water (even when moved from its original migratory route) if neither the butterfly itself or its ancestors have traveled the route?
#2: Do you believe that our current understanding of science can adequately explain the entire universe, thus if our scientific model can't explain something, it must not exist?
#3: Do you agree that creative people who draw from creative inspiration, often succeed over those who don't or can't, when solving problems?
#4: Where do you think that intuition or creative inspiration comes from?
#5: When and if you get a "gut feeling" about something unfamiliar, where do you think this knowledge originates and how?
--airspoon
reply posted on 16-11-2010 @ 04:26 PM by Skyfloating
A Cosmic Google that can't be Used?
The purpose of formal Debate is to determine the truth of something at that point in time. The distinguishing characteristic of truth is that it can be used, harnessed, applied. Science can be applied with real, observable effects. I point this out because my esteemed opponent kept repeating that his idea cannot be harnessed, cannot be used, cannot be proven, cannot be repeated, cannot be demonstrated. He claims that harnessing this concept is a non-issue:
I just want to reiterate the subject of this debate, which is whether a shared body of knowledge exists, such as a collective unconscious, not whether we can take full advantage of it and harness this force at will.
Also, you seem to be focusing on its usefulness or benefit and burden to society, which matters not in the case for its existence.
The reader may now be asking: If harnessing this force is not an issue, if experiencing it is not an issue, if demonstrating it is not an issue, then why is this an issue at all? Imagine someone advertising for Google, then telling you neither he nor you can use Google and then saying that this is not an issue.
Imagine someone saying "The akashic chronicles are real....but they are completely irrelevant.
The Debate topic is that there is a shared body of knowledge. The word "knowledge" is a hint that this is something that can actually be used, applied, harnessed, tapped into. If there is no knowledge to be gained from it we must, at least for now, conclude that the notion is not verifiable, not true and my opponent must resign from the Debate.
Socratic Question 1:Can you teach us how to tap into that "body of knowledge" you profess to know about?
After saying "I am not arguing that we can harness this force" he contradicts himself by saying:
Imy argument is that a collective body of knowledge does exist and that we indirectly interact with it on a subconscious level through our intuition, inspiration and innate behaviors
To which I respond with Socratic Question 2: Are you saying we can harness a supernatural force for the purpose of gaining intuitive spiritual insights?
When answering please be mindful of this statement of yours:
I don't think that at this time, you possess the ability to tap into and harness the collective unconscious,
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scams in Science not Comparible to Scams in New Age Field
The sad truth of the matter is that there are scam-artists in almost every field,
Ths point is meant to put an idea such as "The Akashic Chronicles" on the same level as Science. The logical fallacy here can easily be detected in that 99 out of 100 science papers are legitimate and produce real-life results. How many papers on the "Akashic Chronciles" have produced real-life results?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Butterflies can see, hear and smell
Next my opponent makes a great deal of migrating butterflies and how they avoid obstacles. He calls butterflies that can see, hear and smell things a "miracle". Maybe thats because he missed Biology class:
Butterflies' sensory systems help them find food and mates, avoid predators, and choose appropriate host plants for their eggs. Their senses may be divided into four basic categories: touch, hearing, sight, and taste/smell. The last two categories are usually the most well-developed systems in butterflies.
Source: Monarchwatch
_________________________________________________________________________________
To answer Airspoons 5 questions:
#1: How do you think that the Monarch butterfly can navigate to its respective destination, while avoiding large obstacles such as the Gulf of Mexico or large bodies of water (even when moved from its original migratory route) if neither the butterfly itself or its ancestors have traveled the route?
Insects normally avoid obstacles with their senses. Make sense?
#2: Do you believe that our current understanding of science can adequately explain the entire universe, thus if our scientific model can't explain something, it must not exist?
Of Course our current model cant explain everything. But it can predict what is probable and what is not. And what is currently usable and what is not. What is the point of investing a lot of time in arguing something that cannot be seen, proven, understood or used? Lets start with making the probable a reality before getting into all kinds of weirdness.
Even Western Religions and Spiritual Traditions cast doubt on the idea of there being a "collective". They instead suggest that there is an Individual Soul and that Intuition is gained from the experience and knowledge of this Individual Soul and not some vague "Collective".So you see, even from many Spiritual Perspectives the idea is lacking. Give it a rest Airspoon.
#3: Do you agree that creative people who draw from creative inspiration, often succeed over those who don't or can't, when solving problems?
Yes.
#4: Where do you think that intuition or creative inspiration comes from?
From the Individual, from the Mind, Brain, Genetic Memory or from the Soul. No "Cosmic Library" required.
#5: When and if you get a "gut feeling" about something unfamiliar, where do you think this knowledge originates and how?
From the gut comes the strut, and where hunger reigns, strength abstains
Same answer as #4.
________________________________________________________________________________
The weakness of my opponents position is neatly summarized in this statement of his:
until we have the means to scientifically measure something or evidence to prove or disprove its validity, it has an equal footing of probability as anything else
This type of new age gobbledygook basically means that having sexual intercourse with pink elephants on Mars is equally probable to us finding water on Mars. Does anybody out there with a brain actually believe that?
_________________________________________________________________________
An example of how new-age-Scam-artists operate I have found here: Akashic Record Reading.
It appears as the first commercial result when you type "Akashic Records" into Google. After reading through a list of utter tripe, the reader is asked to dish out $325 for a "reading".
Socratic Question 3: What benefits have you personally gained from embracing the idea of "Akashic Chronicles"?
This is an Imagine I got out of the Internet of two "Ascended Masters" who are also "Akashic Masters". I add them here because I think they look Hilarious. These are the last people I'd give my credit card to, not to mention my hearts trust...
Socratic Question 4: What benefit does believing in the Akashic Chronicles have?
Socratic Question 5: Could Intuition and Inspiration also come from Nature, or God, or a Soul, or the Mind or Genetic Memory?
reply posted on 17-11-2010 @ 04:23 PM by airspoon
If my opponent wants to argue the "pros and cons" of the collective unconscious, as opposed to the pro and con supposition of the debate topic
(whether or not it is true), then that is indirectly admitting its existence and he should go ahead and cede the debate, as you can't have benefits
and burdens to something that doesn't exist. The reader should note that I'm not here to argue for or against, only that it exists.
Where did you get that? The distinguishing characteristic of truth is that it is reality. Lets look at the wind for a moment. You don't have to harness it to know it's there, as you can feel the subtle affects when it blows up against your face. Over the years, our technology and applied sciences have advanced to a point where we we're finally able to harness this force through things like sails and windmills (eventually turbines for energy). However, before we had this ability to harness the wind, the wind still existed and we still interacted with it. The same thing can be said for the collective unconscious. Just because we aren't yet able to harness this force at will, does not mean that it doesn't exist, as we can also feel the subtle affects of a collective unconscious through our "gut", in the form of intuition and creative inspiration. Indeed, some people may have been able to harness this force, yet we don't know exactly how yet.
I would like to point out the difference between interacting and harnessing, as my opponent is not distinguishing between the two. You can interact with something without harnessing it. Harnessing a force is gaining control of it, at least to an extent, while simply interacting with it isn't. If you interact with me by calling my name, you're not necessarily gaining control over me, though if you harness me to use me at your will (say for labor or sex), you certainly are gaining at least a little control. It could be argued that Edgar Cayce was able to harness this collective unconscious, yet our current understanding of the universe isn't advanced enough for us to understand exactly how or maybe even why.
Lets suppose the power of wind was accidently found. We could imagine that a war party in a boat noticed that their vessel seemed to be under its own power. It would probably seem like magic to them, all the while they didn't realize that their war banner was acting like a sail. Many people back in port may not have believed them, that their boat could travel all the way across the sea with out a single oar sliding into the water. I'm sure that many people aboard the boat thought it was due to their prayers or some thing they did in battle to appease their gods. They might have tried to replicate some of these things, not realizing that it was their larger than normal war banner harnessing the wind.
Now if these people couldn't replicate this feat, it wouldn't mean that the wind didn't exist, it just means they don't know how to harness its force. It also doesn't mean that these people don't interact with this force, as they are interacting with it every time a breeze cradles their face. They only know the wind from their very limited interactions with it and I'm sure that they couldn't imagine that one day wind would be harnessed in a manner that would eventually heat homes.
Not true, as it is used quite often and on a much more common basis than we think. Furthermore, I never said it couldn't be harnessed or intentionally harvested, just that the method of access is not the focus of my argument. In fact, I do believe that the collective unconscious has been harnessed by at least one person, though you need not hold this belief to believe that it exists. As far as it being proven, there are many things in this universe that can't be proven yet, such as black holes and dark matter. It certainly doesn't mean that they never will be proven or that they don't exist.
The Monarch butterfly doesn't merely avoid obstacles, such as seeing the object then going around it. Instead, this butterfly seems to formulate its route in a manner that avoids obstacles before the creature can even see them, sometimes flying hundreds of miles in a reverse direction. This behavior can't be explained through the theory of genetic memory or biological navigation. For instance, if you capture a butterfly in Arkansas, whose final destination is central Mexico and then release it in Miami, instead of flying west across the Gulf of Mexico, it will fly north until it gets to Georgia or Alabama, then turn west to Texas and on to Mexico, not flying in view of the coast. Most creatures can only avoid obstacles once they see or smell them. In fact, humans weren't able to pull off this feat until the invention of maps and GPS or of course unless someone was telling us which way to go. Who or what is telling these butterflies where to go?
I can show you how it taps into us. I can point out how we all interact it with it, though I can't give you directions to harness its force.
No.
Well, I don't exactly "embrace" the idea of Akashic Chronicals, though I have benefitted plenty from what I believe to be a collective unconscious. As mentioned before, I believe I'm alive today because of my "gut" and my willingness to "listen" to it. I now have a beautiful family and I'm here today enjoying this debate with you.
As far as I'm concerned only one (what benefit does believing in dark matter or ET life have?) and that is because it will lead to intellectual debate, thus discovery, though again I'm not arguing the benefit or pros of the issue, rather I'm arguing the "pro" proposition of this debate topic, "There is a shared body of human knowledge which transcends space and time, such as the "collective unconscious" or "akashic record".” My argument is that it exists, not that it benefits our society or our universe.
With that being said, the benefits for being able to harness this force would be immeasurable and I believe that there are many benefits to the way we commonly interact with this force, regardless of whether one believes in it or not.
Well, in a way the collective unconscious could be considered "god". The notion of "god" is vague and interpreted in a plethora of different ways. Sure, god could be giving us the intuition and inspiration, though god could also be giving us the collective unconscious, thus intuition and inspiration are a symptom of this gift. It really depends on who or what your "god" is. Whatever the case, a belief in the god of Abraham (Christians, Jews, Muslims), doesn't necessarily contradict the idea of a collective unconscious because in a way, their theology describes a collective unconscious in the form of god or heaven.
Nature is a pretty broad notion, though I would certainly say that intuition and inspiration both, thus the collective unconscious, permeates nature.
Genetic memory is just a theory and the theory stipulates certain limits. The theory of genetic memory doesn't go nearly far enough to explain what we experience through intuition, inspiration, our "gut" or even psychic powers. I'm willing to accept that genetic memory may be responsible for a limited set of innate behaviors, though certainly not what we are talking about here. Going with your gut feeling and avoiding a car wreck or IED, can't be explained through genetic memory, nor can the prophecies and alleged "healings" of Edgar Cayce. It would be foolish to think that genetic memory is responsible for our intuition, inspiration and our "gut".
As far as our soul or mind being responsible for this "knowledge", it would require either prior experience or a collective unconscious. Their is no doubt that our mind is processing this knowledge, though the question then becomes, where did this knowledge originate?
#1: Do you think that genetic memory is responsible for our "gut feelings" or inspiration and if yes, how so? Could you please explain?
#2: If you believe that god, as opposed to a collective unconscious, is responsible for psychic powers, intuition, inspiration or a plain old gut feeling about something, could you please explain the difference between the two, such as how god wouldn't then be the collective unconscious?
#3: Do you believe that you can interact with something without being able to harness it at will? If not, please explain.
#4: If the migratory behaviors of Monarch butterflies are so easily explained through our established scientific model, then why are scientists stumped as to how they behave? Why hasn't science been able to explain it?
#5: Could you please explain where you believe intuition, psychic powers, "Deja vu" and "gut feelings" come from and how the process works?
--airspoon
9,933 characters, not including this statement (according to http://_javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml)
The distinguishing characteristic of truth is that it can be used, harnessed, applied.
Where did you get that? The distinguishing characteristic of truth is that it is reality. Lets look at the wind for a moment. You don't have to harness it to know it's there, as you can feel the subtle affects when it blows up against your face. Over the years, our technology and applied sciences have advanced to a point where we we're finally able to harness this force through things like sails and windmills (eventually turbines for energy). However, before we had this ability to harness the wind, the wind still existed and we still interacted with it. The same thing can be said for the collective unconscious. Just because we aren't yet able to harness this force at will, does not mean that it doesn't exist, as we can also feel the subtle affects of a collective unconscious through our "gut", in the form of intuition and creative inspiration. Indeed, some people may have been able to harness this force, yet we don't know exactly how yet.
I would like to point out the difference between interacting and harnessing, as my opponent is not distinguishing between the two. You can interact with something without harnessing it. Harnessing a force is gaining control of it, at least to an extent, while simply interacting with it isn't. If you interact with me by calling my name, you're not necessarily gaining control over me, though if you harness me to use me at your will (say for labor or sex), you certainly are gaining at least a little control. It could be argued that Edgar Cayce was able to harness this collective unconscious, yet our current understanding of the universe isn't advanced enough for us to understand exactly how or maybe even why.
Lets suppose the power of wind was accidently found. We could imagine that a war party in a boat noticed that their vessel seemed to be under its own power. It would probably seem like magic to them, all the while they didn't realize that their war banner was acting like a sail. Many people back in port may not have believed them, that their boat could travel all the way across the sea with out a single oar sliding into the water. I'm sure that many people aboard the boat thought it was due to their prayers or some thing they did in battle to appease their gods. They might have tried to replicate some of these things, not realizing that it was their larger than normal war banner harnessing the wind.
Now if these people couldn't replicate this feat, it wouldn't mean that the wind didn't exist, it just means they don't know how to harness its force. It also doesn't mean that these people don't interact with this force, as they are interacting with it every time a breeze cradles their face. They only know the wind from their very limited interactions with it and I'm sure that they couldn't imagine that one day wind would be harnessed in a manner that would eventually heat homes.
I point this out because my esteemed opponent kept repeating that his idea cannot be harnessed, cannot be used, cannot be proven, cannot be repeated, cannot be demonstrated.
Not true, as it is used quite often and on a much more common basis than we think. Furthermore, I never said it couldn't be harnessed or intentionally harvested, just that the method of access is not the focus of my argument. In fact, I do believe that the collective unconscious has been harnessed by at least one person, though you need not hold this belief to believe that it exists. As far as it being proven, there are many things in this universe that can't be proven yet, such as black holes and dark matter. It certainly doesn't mean that they never will be proven or that they don't exist.
Butterflies
The Monarch butterfly doesn't merely avoid obstacles, such as seeing the object then going around it. Instead, this butterfly seems to formulate its route in a manner that avoids obstacles before the creature can even see them, sometimes flying hundreds of miles in a reverse direction. This behavior can't be explained through the theory of genetic memory or biological navigation. For instance, if you capture a butterfly in Arkansas, whose final destination is central Mexico and then release it in Miami, instead of flying west across the Gulf of Mexico, it will fly north until it gets to Georgia or Alabama, then turn west to Texas and on to Mexico, not flying in view of the coast. Most creatures can only avoid obstacles once they see or smell them. In fact, humans weren't able to pull off this feat until the invention of maps and GPS or of course unless someone was telling us which way to go. Who or what is telling these butterflies where to go?
Socratic Question 1:Can you teach us how to tap into that "body of knowledge" you profess to know about?
I can show you how it taps into us. I can point out how we all interact it with it, though I can't give you directions to harness its force.
Socratic Question 2: Are you saying we can harness a supernatural force for the purpose of gaining intuitive spiritual insights?
No.
Socratic Question 3: What benefits have you personally gained from embracing the idea of "Akashic Chronicles"?
Well, I don't exactly "embrace" the idea of Akashic Chronicals, though I have benefitted plenty from what I believe to be a collective unconscious. As mentioned before, I believe I'm alive today because of my "gut" and my willingness to "listen" to it. I now have a beautiful family and I'm here today enjoying this debate with you.
Socratic Question 4: What benefit does believing in the Akashic Chronicles have?
As far as I'm concerned only one (what benefit does believing in dark matter or ET life have?) and that is because it will lead to intellectual debate, thus discovery, though again I'm not arguing the benefit or pros of the issue, rather I'm arguing the "pro" proposition of this debate topic, "There is a shared body of human knowledge which transcends space and time, such as the "collective unconscious" or "akashic record".” My argument is that it exists, not that it benefits our society or our universe.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Basic explanation of debating:
You and an opponent will be assigned a proposition at random. One will argue pro (that the statement made in the topic is true) the other will argue the con (that the statement is not true). Source
With that being said, the benefits for being able to harness this force would be immeasurable and I believe that there are many benefits to the way we commonly interact with this force, regardless of whether one believes in it or not.
Socratic Question 5: Could Intuition and Inspiration also come from Nature, or God, or a Soul, or the Mind or Genetic Memory?
Well, in a way the collective unconscious could be considered "god". The notion of "god" is vague and interpreted in a plethora of different ways. Sure, god could be giving us the intuition and inspiration, though god could also be giving us the collective unconscious, thus intuition and inspiration are a symptom of this gift. It really depends on who or what your "god" is. Whatever the case, a belief in the god of Abraham (Christians, Jews, Muslims), doesn't necessarily contradict the idea of a collective unconscious because in a way, their theology describes a collective unconscious in the form of god or heaven.
Nature is a pretty broad notion, though I would certainly say that intuition and inspiration both, thus the collective unconscious, permeates nature.
Genetic memory is just a theory and the theory stipulates certain limits. The theory of genetic memory doesn't go nearly far enough to explain what we experience through intuition, inspiration, our "gut" or even psychic powers. I'm willing to accept that genetic memory may be responsible for a limited set of innate behaviors, though certainly not what we are talking about here. Going with your gut feeling and avoiding a car wreck or IED, can't be explained through genetic memory, nor can the prophecies and alleged "healings" of Edgar Cayce. It would be foolish to think that genetic memory is responsible for our intuition, inspiration and our "gut".
As far as our soul or mind being responsible for this "knowledge", it would require either prior experience or a collective unconscious. Their is no doubt that our mind is processing this knowledge, though the question then becomes, where did this knowledge originate?
Socratic Questions
#1: Do you think that genetic memory is responsible for our "gut feelings" or inspiration and if yes, how so? Could you please explain?
#2: If you believe that god, as opposed to a collective unconscious, is responsible for psychic powers, intuition, inspiration or a plain old gut feeling about something, could you please explain the difference between the two, such as how god wouldn't then be the collective unconscious?
#3: Do you believe that you can interact with something without being able to harness it at will? If not, please explain.
#4: If the migratory behaviors of Monarch butterflies are so easily explained through our established scientific model, then why are scientists stumped as to how they behave? Why hasn't science been able to explain it?
#5: Could you please explain where you believe intuition, psychic powers, "Deja vu" and "gut feelings" come from and how the process works?
--airspoon
9,933 characters, not including this statement (according to http://_javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml)
reply posted on 18-11-2010 @ 03:55 AM by Skyfloating
I have butterflies in my gut...NOT
Dear Esteemed Reader, dear Internet-Lurkers,
the point of my previous posts were two-fold:
1. To point out that something that is neither experience-able, nor tangible nor useful nor usable cannot be considered to be "true" or to exist.
2. To lure the Debate opponent into wasting two large posts debating this in order to distract him from building a case. To this point in the Debate he still hasn't actually built a convincing case. We dont know much more about the "akashic records" or their use than we did before.
Originally posted by airspoon
If my opponent wants to argue the "pros and cons" of the collective unconscious, as opposed to the pro and con supposition of the debate topic (whether or not it is true), then that is indirectly admitting its existence
I wasnt discussing the Pros and Cons but whether your supposed "Knowledge" can be experienced or used. If it cant be used, its no Knowledge. If it cant even be experienced, then it cant be shown or proven to be real at this time. Note: My opponents lengthy comparison of the Wind to the collective unconscious ("We could feel the wind before we could harness it") does not work for the purpose of this Debate because Wind can actually be experienced with your senses, whereas the "akashic records" cannot. Truth can either be harnessed or experienced. Thats why good and effectifve science is based on Empiricism. "Empirical" means that information is gained by observation, experience or experiment.
Let's cut the BS
My opponent has provided no case studies, no stats, no data, no science and not even a spiritual view of the topic. All he has provided is some vague "gut feeling" and something about Butterflies that follow a habitual, genetically-imprinted migrating pattern. If I were my opponent I would have done at least just a little bit of research and introduced people like Rupert Sheldrake who has gained widespread applause for trying to take kooky ideas such as "akashic records" and put them into a more scientific and testable context.
Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world’s most innovative biologists and writers is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory.
You might be wondering why I am handing my opponent the means and resources to argue his point. Its because I believe that readers of this Debate deserve to learn more than about just some unspecified "gut feeling" so that they can really get a comprehensive view of both sides.
As opposed to complete kooks like Edgar Cayce ("Spaceships in Atlantis" anyone?) Sheldrake at least has scientific background. I dont know why my opponent keeps bringing up Edgar Cayce. He could have even cited the most noteworthy and respected man on the subject of "collective unconscious". We are half-way through the Debate and he hasnt even mentioned Carl Gustav Jung
...the very man who coined the term "collective unconscious". Alas, its not my side. If my opponent wants to use Cayce instead of Jung and Sheldrake, so be it.
this butterfly seems to formulate its route in a manner that avoids obstacles before the creature can even see them,
Maybe thats what those peculiar antennas are for. Just because there are methods and senses we have not discovered yet, does not mean that something supernatural or magical is happening. Anything humans dont yet understand they try to label as "supernatural". A few hundred years ago, if you got a cold, it was "evil spirits attacking you". Today we know its a viral infection and we also know how to remedy it. Or maybe it is like I said, Genetic Memory:
Scientists discover molecular basis for butterfly migration
an awesome and mysterious occurrence. However, over the past two decades, scientists have begun to unveil the journey for what it is: a spectacular result of biology, driven by an intricate molecular mechanism in a tiny cluster of cells in the butterfly brain
I don't exactly "embrace" the idea of Akashic Chronicals
I noticed you dont actually believe in what you are trying to impart here.
Well, in a way the collective unconscious could be considered "god"
Both religious and mystical Traditions all delineate God as fully conscious, not unconsious, as Source of Creation, not as Creation. Some mystical Traditions view God as both Creator and Creation, as "Everything".However, this idea still does not imply some kind of Cosmic Library made up of human thoughts.
The idea of the collective unconscious or akashic records is that everything you think is stored in some kind of library that you can access. But there are also teachings that contradict this idea. Buddhism, for example, says that thoughts are a fleeting whisp of energy that comes and goes. Energy always transforms into something else. You probably have thousands of mundane thoughts a day...why should they all be "stored" Who would care to store each and every of your fleeting thoughts? "23 000 years ago you went to the restroom and you thought about the color of the bathroom tile. We have stored this information forever"
Browsing through the new-age section of the bookshop you will see that modern ideas of the source of Intuition and Inspiration say that it does not come from the "collective unconscious" but from ones own Soul or "Higher Self". That would mean that your Inspiration is unique to you and not part of some collective. I point this out to show how neither Science nor Religion nor major parts of Spiritual Tradition require a "collective unconscious".
the prophecies and alleged "healings" of Edgar Cayce
You havent shown a single prophecy of Cayces that has come true. So there is no reason to keep bringing Cayce up.
#1: Do you think that genetic memory is responsible for our "gut feelings" or inspiration and if yes, how so? Could you please explain?
Inspiration may originate from our own Experience and our own Desires. This need not only include our life experience but could also be triggered by genetic memories. An alternative explanation is that Inspiration comes from ones "Higher Self" or Soul. Both instances require no "akasha".
#2: If you believe that god, as opposed to a collective unconscious, is responsible for psychic powers, intuition, inspiration or a plain old gut feeling about something, could you please explain the difference between the two, such as how god wouldn't then be the collective unconscious?
In Religion, God is the Creator, not the Creation. The single-pointed Source, not the effect. In Hinduism the idea is more of God being Creator and Creation. In Buddhism its all merely a field of Energy. None of these concepts require the Jungian Concept of "Collective Unconscious".
#3: Do you believe that you can interact with something without being able to harness it at will? If not, please explain.
Sure I can. I can experience wind. I can interact with wind, in a way. I can harness wind. Neither can be demonstrated of your "akashic records".
#4: If the migratory behaviors of Monarch butterflies are so easily explained through our established scientific model, then why are scientists stumped as to how they behave? Why hasn't science been able to explain it?
The link provided earlier sends you and interested readers to an article (one of thousands) that show how scientists are not at all stumped or bewildered. What used to be a mystery now becomes explainable. Thats science.
#5: Could you please explain where you believe intuition, psychic powers, "Deja vu" and "gut feelings" come from and how the process works?
First of all, there is controversy as to whether these things even exist or not. And even if they do exist, they could be explained by not-yet-discovered senses. Or not yet discovered natural phenomena. Or spiritual phenomena such as discarnate entities and beings. Or not yet discovered abilities of the mind. No "akashic records" required.
Socratic Question 1: Which of Cayces prophecies have come true?
Socratic Question 2: Which of Cayces "visions" on Atlantis have been confirmed by Archaeological finds?
Socratic Question 3: Could you go into Detail about this gut-feeling you have (as in where is it, where does it come from)?
Socratic Question 4: Is a collective mind required for Inspiration?
Socratic Question 5: What are thoughts?
reply posted on 19-11-2010 @ 03:06 AM by airspoon
While my opponent serendipitously changes strategy, I will not, as the reader is more inclined to both understand and believe his or her own
experiences, over those of someone making extraordinary claims (however true they may be) or selling books. Because this subject matter transcends our
three dimensions of space-time, we are not yet capable of measuring this force outside of our own personal experiences, thus any claims
made by proponents of any one brand of mysticism can only be taken at face value. Face value becomes a lot more potent (as well as monetarily
affordable) when the reader can relate his or her own experiences and ponder the origin of these occurrences.
I am not now, or have I anywhere in this debate, argued for any particular brand or "teaching" of mysticism, such as the "akashic chronicles", because as my opponent has so graciously pointed out, it is rife with scam-artists, profit seekers and unsubstantiated claims. Instead, I want to focus on the fundamentals, the more commonly experienced generic form of a shared body of knowledge that may or may not be aligned with any one brand of mysticism and if my opponent makes a good counter argument against this idea, then a move into what I believe to be the most credible cases of harnessing this library of knowledge would be considered. So far he has not. My intent is to isolate and expose the common denominators on a fundamental level that may or may not fit in with the various disciplines of mystical teachings, but that do fit in with the notion of a shared body of knowledge that transcends the three dimensions of space-time (such as an extra dimension).
The problem is, when you get into the teachings of any particular discipline of mysticism or proponent of the same, it boils down to whether you believe or disbelieve what you are being told, a stalemated mystic versus skeptic debate. This is why I am not going into the spiritual teachings and extraordinary supernatural claims of certain individuals or disciplines of mysticism and instead, I'm breaking this down to the fundamentals and staying with the lowest common denominators. I can list various prophets and mystics all day long and their respective trustworthiness according to my own judgment, though it will ultimately come down to whether or not one has faith in their word. By focusing on the way we all interact with this body of knowledge, however more subtle it may be, you do not have to put your belief or trust in anyone's word, other than your own. Reader, please take note.
So far, your only counter to my claim, other than baiting and distracting (though unintentional it may or may not be), has been the theory of "genetic memory", which I might add has also not been proven. However, even if "genetic memory" does exist, it doesn't come close to explaining the traits mentioned throughout this debate. For one, genetic memory requires very long spans of time, of which your ancestors would have had to have the same common experiences, thus allowing the "memory" to be encoded in your genes. Then, this memory would have to be beneficial somehow to your survival, thus giving it a reason to be passed along. Also, this genetic memory would be limited in scope, only allowing the most common and important survival behaviors that your ancestors all commonly shared.
Knowing that a growling tiger is dangerous, I could accept as resulting from genetic memory, while having a "gut feeling" or logically superseding intuition about getting onboard an aircraft or dumping stock, I can not. Quitting your job (and being better off) against your logical and rational judgment, due to intuitive reasoning, can not be explained through genetic memory.
Okay, lets suppose that this is true, it would be irrelevant here, as my argument hasn't been defined in such a manner. We not only experience this shared body of knowledge, but it is often used as well. Nowhere in this debate thus far, have I ever stated or implied that we can not use or experience this shared body of knowledge. For most of us, we interact with it in a subtle manner, thus we experience it.
If I wasted two whole posts being distracted, then you wasted two whole posts distracting. My case was made from the beginning and you have yet to adequately counter my argument that intuition, certain innate behaviors (instincts), "gut" feelings and quite possibly psychic abilities are drawing from this shared body of knowledge. Furthermore, the reason that we haven't thus far learned about the "akashic records", is because I'm not necessarily making a case for it or any other particular discipline of mysticism. Instead, I'm making a case for a fundamental force that I believe to be a shared body of knowledge, in the generic form, one that we subtly interact with and also one that arguably, some psychics have been able to harness and use at their own will, at least to a limited extent. This shared body of knowledge doesn't have to be anything other than a fundamental interacting force of the universe, similar to gravity, as it can be encoded in one of the other eight dimensions defined in M-theory, an extension to string theory, thus making it natural. Again, my intentions are to discuss the fundamentals, as opposed to being caught up in the details and turning this into a mystic vs. skeptic debate.
First, I'd like to again explain why the butterflies are even mentioned. These butterflies are clearly guided by something that can not be explained through our current scientific model. If we can find a fault here with genetic memory, it proves that genetic memory can't explain all innate behaviors. It also hints at a universally shared body of knowledge. If other species interact with it, then logic would dictate that we should too.
The source you cited for the butterflies is outdated and has been proven wrong. In the last couple of years, there has been some advancements in the research due to tagging technology. Your source claims that these butterflies have a "sun compass", though that has since been disproven. For one, these butterflies do not home in on the sun for direction and even if they did, it would not explain how these butterflies can pre-route their trip to avoid large obstacles such as lakes or large bodies of water, even when their ancestors have not had prior experience with these obstacles.
Cayce accurately and correctly foresaw the stock market crash of 1929 (2723-1 and 900-425), WWII (416-7), the convergence of communications companies (257-30, Par. 17-A, 18-A on 8/24/28), blood as a diagnostic tool (283-2) and the El Nino and La Nina climate affects (195-29), just to name a few.
None. Many things, Cayce apparently got right, though many things do seem a little far-fetched, however the accuracy with the things that were right, seem to suggest something much more than vagueness or lucky guesses. He may not have been able to harness the full potential of this force, though again that says nothing against its existence.
Sure, a "gut feeling" is a form of intuition, though a little more extraordinary. Where intuition doesn't require rational thought, a gut feeling often supersedes rational thought. If your biological processes create rational thought and your gut accurately overrides this biological process, you are clearly thinking beyond your means, thus the origin is elsewhere. It is often something that we otherwise should not know. It is the feeling you get that you should disobey what your own prior experience, logic or reason is telling you.
Ultimately, I believe it does, as it is a form of intuition. It is a thought or solution entering one's mind. The thought or solution is not in question here, though its origin is. Where does this thought originate? At which point do these thoughts enter the mind and where do they enter from? My belief is that they enter from a shared body of knowledge that transcends our three dimensions of space and time, perhaps from an extra-dimension.
A thought is the content of cognition or the process in which one considers something.
SQ #1: How do you think that genetic memory could have formed to give us intuitive insight to modern problems?
SQ #2: Do you not agree that a shared body of knowledge may be no more magic than the four fundamental interactions of the universe (gravity, strong & weak nuclear and EM) and if not, why not?
SQ #3: Do you agree that just because our current scientific model can't explain something doesn't mean that it is magic or non-existent?
SQ #4: Do you agree that you can interact with something, while not harnessing its full potential?
SQ #5: Can you please enlighten us all as to how people succeed by following their gut or intuition, in spite of their rational thought process?
--airspoon
I am not now, or have I anywhere in this debate, argued for any particular brand or "teaching" of mysticism, such as the "akashic chronicles", because as my opponent has so graciously pointed out, it is rife with scam-artists, profit seekers and unsubstantiated claims. Instead, I want to focus on the fundamentals, the more commonly experienced generic form of a shared body of knowledge that may or may not be aligned with any one brand of mysticism and if my opponent makes a good counter argument against this idea, then a move into what I believe to be the most credible cases of harnessing this library of knowledge would be considered. So far he has not. My intent is to isolate and expose the common denominators on a fundamental level that may or may not fit in with the various disciplines of mystical teachings, but that do fit in with the notion of a shared body of knowledge that transcends the three dimensions of space-time (such as an extra dimension).
The problem is, when you get into the teachings of any particular discipline of mysticism or proponent of the same, it boils down to whether you believe or disbelieve what you are being told, a stalemated mystic versus skeptic debate. This is why I am not going into the spiritual teachings and extraordinary supernatural claims of certain individuals or disciplines of mysticism and instead, I'm breaking this down to the fundamentals and staying with the lowest common denominators. I can list various prophets and mystics all day long and their respective trustworthiness according to my own judgment, though it will ultimately come down to whether or not one has faith in their word. By focusing on the way we all interact with this body of knowledge, however more subtle it may be, you do not have to put your belief or trust in anyone's word, other than your own. Reader, please take note.
So far, your only counter to my claim, other than baiting and distracting (though unintentional it may or may not be), has been the theory of "genetic memory", which I might add has also not been proven. However, even if "genetic memory" does exist, it doesn't come close to explaining the traits mentioned throughout this debate. For one, genetic memory requires very long spans of time, of which your ancestors would have had to have the same common experiences, thus allowing the "memory" to be encoded in your genes. Then, this memory would have to be beneficial somehow to your survival, thus giving it a reason to be passed along. Also, this genetic memory would be limited in scope, only allowing the most common and important survival behaviors that your ancestors all commonly shared.
Knowing that a growling tiger is dangerous, I could accept as resulting from genetic memory, while having a "gut feeling" or logically superseding intuition about getting onboard an aircraft or dumping stock, I can not. Quitting your job (and being better off) against your logical and rational judgment, due to intuitive reasoning, can not be explained through genetic memory.
Your stated goals:
1. To point out that something that is neither experience-able, nor tangible nor useful nor usable cannot be considered to be "true" or to exist.
Okay, lets suppose that this is true, it would be irrelevant here, as my argument hasn't been defined in such a manner. We not only experience this shared body of knowledge, but it is often used as well. Nowhere in this debate thus far, have I ever stated or implied that we can not use or experience this shared body of knowledge. For most of us, we interact with it in a subtle manner, thus we experience it.
2. To lure the Debate opponent into wasting two large posts debating this in order to distract him from building a case. To this point in the Debate he still hasn't actually built a convincing case. We dont know much more about the "akashic records" or their use than we did before.
If I wasted two whole posts being distracted, then you wasted two whole posts distracting. My case was made from the beginning and you have yet to adequately counter my argument that intuition, certain innate behaviors (instincts), "gut" feelings and quite possibly psychic abilities are drawing from this shared body of knowledge. Furthermore, the reason that we haven't thus far learned about the "akashic records", is because I'm not necessarily making a case for it or any other particular discipline of mysticism. Instead, I'm making a case for a fundamental force that I believe to be a shared body of knowledge, in the generic form, one that we subtly interact with and also one that arguably, some psychics have been able to harness and use at their own will, at least to a limited extent. This shared body of knowledge doesn't have to be anything other than a fundamental interacting force of the universe, similar to gravity, as it can be encoded in one of the other eight dimensions defined in M-theory, an extension to string theory, thus making it natural. Again, my intentions are to discuss the fundamentals, as opposed to being caught up in the details and turning this into a mystic vs. skeptic debate.
Of Butterflies and the Universe
First, I'd like to again explain why the butterflies are even mentioned. These butterflies are clearly guided by something that can not be explained through our current scientific model. If we can find a fault here with genetic memory, it proves that genetic memory can't explain all innate behaviors. It also hints at a universally shared body of knowledge. If other species interact with it, then logic would dictate that we should too.
The source you cited for the butterflies is outdated and has been proven wrong. In the last couple of years, there has been some advancements in the research due to tagging technology. Your source claims that these butterflies have a "sun compass", though that has since been disproven. For one, these butterflies do not home in on the sun for direction and even if they did, it would not explain how these butterflies can pre-route their trip to avoid large obstacles such as lakes or large bodies of water, even when their ancestors have not had prior experience with these obstacles.
No one knows exactly how their homing system works 2010
Socratic Question 1: Which of Cayces prophecies have come true?
Cayce accurately and correctly foresaw the stock market crash of 1929 (2723-1 and 900-425), WWII (416-7), the convergence of communications companies (257-30, Par. 17-A, 18-A on 8/24/28), blood as a diagnostic tool (283-2) and the El Nino and La Nina climate affects (195-29), just to name a few.
Socratic Question 2: Which of Cayces "visions" on Atlantis have been confirmed by Archaeological finds?
None. Many things, Cayce apparently got right, though many things do seem a little far-fetched, however the accuracy with the things that were right, seem to suggest something much more than vagueness or lucky guesses. He may not have been able to harness the full potential of this force, though again that says nothing against its existence.
Socratic Question 3: Could you go into Detail about this gut-feeling you have (as in where is it, where does it come from)?
Sure, a "gut feeling" is a form of intuition, though a little more extraordinary. Where intuition doesn't require rational thought, a gut feeling often supersedes rational thought. If your biological processes create rational thought and your gut accurately overrides this biological process, you are clearly thinking beyond your means, thus the origin is elsewhere. It is often something that we otherwise should not know. It is the feeling you get that you should disobey what your own prior experience, logic or reason is telling you.
Socratic Question 4: Is a collective mind required for Inspiration?
Ultimately, I believe it does, as it is a form of intuition. It is a thought or solution entering one's mind. The thought or solution is not in question here, though its origin is. Where does this thought originate? At which point do these thoughts enter the mind and where do they enter from? My belief is that they enter from a shared body of knowledge that transcends our three dimensions of space and time, perhaps from an extra-dimension.
Socratic Question 5: What are thoughts?
A thought is the content of cognition or the process in which one considers something.
SQ #1: How do you think that genetic memory could have formed to give us intuitive insight to modern problems?
SQ #2: Do you not agree that a shared body of knowledge may be no more magic than the four fundamental interactions of the universe (gravity, strong & weak nuclear and EM) and if not, why not?
SQ #3: Do you agree that just because our current scientific model can't explain something doesn't mean that it is magic or non-existent?
SQ #4: Do you agree that you can interact with something, while not harnessing its full potential?
SQ #5: Can you please enlighten us all as to how people succeed by following their gut or intuition, in spite of their rational thought process?
--airspoon
reply posted on 19-11-2010 @ 05:13 AM by Skyfloating
Of Supersening Butterflies, Extradimensional Guts and Broken Akashic Records
Research suggests that Monarch Butterflies have a Sensing-System similar to that of Bats and Dolphins.
Animals have evolved highly efficient direction-finding systems. This enables them to steer the right course over great distances, often with astonishing accuracy.Read more here: Basics of Migration
Originally posted by airspoon
While my opponent serendipitously changes strategy, I will not, as the reader is more inclined to both understand and believe his or her own experiences, over those of someone making extraordinary claims (however true they may be) or selling books.
This is Airspoons attempt to position himself as the rationalist and myself as the one making extraordinary claims. But it is he who is making extraordinary claims and me who added alternative spiritual explanations in addition to the scientific explanations. This was done to give the reader a fuller picture. Neither is it a "change of strategy". It is something I did after my opponent failed to cite even the most basic ideas of his side (CG Jung, Sheldrake, Theosophy).
This, by the way, is the model of the Soul many new-agers use. Like so many other new-age ideas it also comes from Hinduism. It is not the model of a collective but of an individual soul that gets increasingly more etheric/subtle. It may or may not be part of a collective but the "body of knowledge" (as per debate topic) does not originate from this collective but from the higher versions of the soul.
But I am CERTAINLY NOT arguing that this Model is "true" or "exists". Im merely pointing out alternatives to my opponents theory of a collective hive mind.
My actual Debate Position has already been made clear and I shall Buffer it with an interesting article I came across while researching Genetic Memory. Beyond the normal explanations we have already seen it is actually possible that Genetic Memory explains more than we suspect, including phenomena my opponent would describe as "magical":
Deep DNA Memory Theories: Can we remember our ancestors lives?
Our IQ and aptitudes, musical skills, athletic ability, even our psychological and emotional traits may be significantly affected by the DNA within us.
if my opponent makes a good counter argument against this idea, then a move into what I believe to be the most credible cases of harnessing this library of knowledge would be considered
Esteemed Readers and Lurkers...this is the classical cop-out of a kook. We see it on these boards all the time. "This Video shows a UFO. Only if you disprove it, I will start showing evidence". This is why, in Science, the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. My opponent had the whole Debate time to provide credible cases showing how "akashic records" exist. Why didnt he? Because there are none.
his is why I am not going into the spiritual teachings and extraordinary supernatural claims of certain individuals or disciplines of mysticism
CG Jung is not a "mysticist" but a highly and widely respected psychologist. Cayce was the mysticist.
"genetic memory", which I might add has also not been proven.
But its just as good an explanation as your supernatural claims. We dont yet know exactly how some phenomena occur. There are many explanations and theories for them. Focussing solely on the collective hive mind or the idea of "akashic records" is highly questionable. I am confident that this has become abundantly clear throughout this Debate.
having a "gut feeling" or logically superseding intuition about getting onboard an aircraft or dumping stock, I can not. Quitting your job (and being better off) against your logical and rational judgment, due to intuitive reasoning, can not be explained through genetic memory.
Then perhaps it can be explained through one of the following theories:
* Yet unknown functions of the mind
Here's what a guy with a scientific degree (as opposed to your main case-builder Edgar Cayce) has to say:
Presentiment, Precognition and Remote Viewing
* God/Angels/Gods/Demons
(This is what ancients believed and Jews, Muslims, Christians still believe today)
* Soul, Spirit, Higher Self
(this is what New-Agers believe)
None require your collective mind.
If I wasted two whole posts being distracted, then you wasted two whole posts distracting.
The burden of building a case lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. Despite this, I have presented both my case, refuted your case and even tried to help build your case for you by directing you to the main proponents of your side.
No one knows exactly how their homing system works 2010
Maybe "no one knows" how it works at this time. But of all possible explanations, you choose the theory of a collective "unconscious" to explain butterflies behaviour? How odd. There are millions of other things you could have chosen that may be more suitable...such as Sheldrakes or Jungs clinical tests and findings. Latest Evidence suggests that the Monarch Butterfly may have a sensing system comparable to that of Birds or Butterflies. Whats wrong with first looking at various scientific explanations?
In the 10th Century nobody knew what was beyond the oceans. Does the land suddenly fall and drop? Is it flatland? Is it eternal water? Are there dragons out there? Are there force-fields out there, invisible walls stopping one? Is there a wall of fire? Is it hell? Is it heaven?
These were some of the real conversations happening back then. Most of them involved supernatural explanations. Then, one day, ships decided to have the Courage to sail out there and replace mere Belief with Experience. They discovered that beyond the waters was....MORE LAND! Scence is all about discovering new land through experiential research, commitment and courage. Quackery and Kookery is all about being too lazy to venture out into the unknown to discover the facts and substitute facts with childish concepts that cant be proven, cant be demonstrated, cant be experienced. These ideas of a collective-library have been around since thousands of years. Hinduism has been around that long. If the idea of these collective records were true, dont you think we'd have evidence of it by now?
Cayce accurately and correctly foresaw the stock market crash of 1929 (2723-1 and 900-425), WWII (416-7), the convergence of communications companies (257-30, Par. 17-A, 18-A on 8/24/28), blood as a diagnostic tool (283-2) and the El Nino and La Nina climate affects (195-29), just to name a few.
Its quite telling that you have not provided any source for that, much less a credible one outside of Cayces Marketing-Pages. I found the Source.
Due to limits in character count I dont want to spend too much time on this tripe. But in one case he warned a customer of his of "adverse forces to come in 1929". This is so general that any street fortune teller would say it many times a day. To later take this as an interpretation that Cayce "foresaw" the stock market crash is hilarious.
Then it says that Edgar Cayce warned of bad "tendencies" regarding the Nazis....guess when....in 1935! In 1935
the Nazis were already in power since years and already creating widely publicized tensions. To interpret this as Cayces "prophecy" is beyond silly. :down:
If your biological processes create rational thought and your gut accurately overrides this biological process, you are clearly thinking beyond your means, thus the origin is elsewhere.
So what the gut does and says is not part of the biological process? Is the gut then located in thin air, hovering over your head perhaps? No need to answer.
SQ #1: How do you think that genetic memory could have formed to give us intuitive insight to modern problems?
The idea of genetic learning is analogues to the idea of building-blocks. The more building blocks accumulate, the more variations split off from them. This leads to exponential growth throughout Human Evolution and the Expansion of Consciousness. In the last 100 years alone we have learned more about the Nature of Reality than in the 1000 years before that. At the same time we have shed false beliefs about "magical forces". Exciting times await us because we are touching more and more on the truth of who we are, where we are from and where we might be going.
SQ #2: Do you not agree that a shared body of knowledge may be no more magic than the four fundamental interactions of the universe (gravity, strong & weak nuclear and EM) and if not, why not?
I believe that someday we may find such a force-field of interconnectedness. Unfortunately this Debate has not contributed anything to that. That is however, no criticism of you as a Person or Debater, but simply a matter of the subject not easily providing even a shred of evidence.
SQ #3: Do you agree that just because our current scientific model can't explain something doesn't mean that it is magic or non-existent?
Of Course I agree. Thats why, in Science, one also looks into the unexplained. But before soliciting the help of fortune tellers like Edgar Cayce, science would first look into more probable and simple explanations.
SQ #4: Do you agree that you can interact with something, while not harnessing its full potential?
Yes. We can interact with what we can see, feel, hear, smell or touch. While I am willing to accept that there are also worlds and things that our 5 senses do not pereceive, focussing too much on them is a slippery slope that more often leads you to a Mental Ward than to the Nobel Prize. Research the invisible YES, but within Reason. . The Edgar Cayce you cited to build your case is not reasonable. Again, C.G. Jung, Rupert Sheldrake and hundreds of other names come to mind before Edgar Cayce does.
SQ #5: Can you please enlighten us all as to how people succeed by following their gut or intuition, in spite of their rational thought process?
"Gut feeling" is merely a colloquial word for the Subconscious. They followed information from their Subconscious Mind, which may be linked to Life Experience, or DNA Experience or Soul Experience or something neither you nor I have thought of yet. It is highly unlikely that it is connected to the "collective library".
Socratic Question 1: For the beneft of me and the reader: What is the best case for "the collective unconscious"?
Socratic Question 2: If you believe in some extra-dimensional library, isnt it also easy to believe in an individual soul?
Socratic Question 3: For the benefit of me and the reader: How can we best interact with this "extradimensional collective" or whatever it is you are arguing?
Socratic Question 4: Do you now agree that the behaviour of a Monarch Butterfly may also find a non-supernatural and non-collective-field explanation?
Socratic Question 5: Did you know that many of Edgar Cayces "ideas" are ripped off from the Theosophical Society?
reply posted on 20-11-2010 @ 08:24 AM by airspoon
What this debate ultimately breaks down to, in its lowest common denominator, is whether or not some of our knowledge is created out of thin air and
whether or not we gain at least some knowledge without learning it from somewhere or something. As was pointed out in my opening post, I remain
skeptical of mystical and magical claims and instead, I believe that many things which are often accepted as spiritual or magical experiences, have a
more rational explanation, regardless of whether or not we are yet capable of understanding this explanation or incorporating it into our current
scientific model of the universe. I believe that this apparently controversial shared body of knowledge is one of these instances.
It has become abundantly clear that our knowledge is not created out of "thin air" (so to speak), whether it is shared through a body of knowledge which is inside of our three dimensions of space-time (such as a book, website, professor, university or prior experience) or whether it is shared through an extra-dimensional means (such as with intuition, psychic powers, creative intuition or innate behaviors). Regardless, this knowledge is not created out of "thin air".
When you learn something through a book or through experience, you aren't creating this knowledge out of "thin air", as this knowledge is being shared with you by the means and methods in which you learn it. So, when you gain knowledge from something that seemingly isn't in our space-time, such as intuition, subtle psychic powers ("gut" feelings) or creative inspiration, it isn't being created out of "thin air" either.
We have to be getting our knowledge from somewhere and usually this knowledge either comes from someone else (such as a teacher, a website or a book) or it comes from our experiences (such as a scientific experiment, a study or a consequence). However, how do we explain the knowledge that doesn't come from someone or something else and which doesn't come from our own experiences? It too isn't being created out of "thin air" and if we can agree that knowledge is learned instead of created, then we must agree that it has to exist somewhere so that we have access to it, however limited that access may or may not be, otherwise we would not be able to gain this knowledge.
The reader should ask him or herself if s/he has ever gained knowledge from what seemed like "thin air", then ponder where this information could have originated, while considering that knowledge isn't created but rather learned by the humble human mind. If this knowledge transcends space-time (thus is extra-dimensional), then this information would seem to be entering our mind from "thin air", though this would only be our perception, as we can only perceive the dimensional aspects of the three dimensions that we live in.
We can look at it this way, if we were stick figures that lived in a two-dimensional world (such as a sheet of paper) and a three-dimensional sphere (such as a gulf ball) were to enter our two-dimensional space (by being placed on or through the sheet of paper), then we would only be able to see this three dimensional object in our limited two-dimensions, thus we would only experience this sphere as a circle, while being unaware that it has an extra dimension. We would not be aware that this circle is actually something else entirely, a sphere.
Carl Sagan explains this notion perfectly, in his "journey through flatland".
This same limited dimensional view makes this knowledge (the knowledge itself or the body of knowledge) seem like it is coming out of thin air, when in reality, we only perceive it that way, as we can only perceive the three dimensions in which we live, as opposed to any extra-dimensional aspects of this body of knowledge. Just as we would only be able to experience the cross section of the hypothetical sphere that would intersect with our hypothetical two dimensional world, we can only experience the cross section of this body of knowledge that intersects with our three dimensional world, ultimately making it seem as if this knowledge was coming out of "thin air".
My opponent tries to compare an insect brain with the brain of a mammal. To compare a dolphin, which has one of the most developed brains of the animal kingdom, to a butterfly is extremely bold, especially considering that the point was already made that Monarch butterflies do not simply find the direction of their destination and take off. In fact, as was pointed out earlier, the Monarch butterfly does not merely fly in the direction of its migratory destination, which in of itself would make this not an issue of its direction finding abilities. A butterfly's brain or central processing unit is not nearly large or developed enough to weigh complicated decisions, such as flying 200 miles to the east in order to avoid a large body of water 100 miles to the south, an obstacle that neither the butterfly nor its ancestors would have had to negotiate or contemplate. While a dolphin might possess the abilities of such complicated decisions making, an insect certainly does not.
Lets just suppose that the Monarch butterfly does have a biological ability to sense direction, which I believe it does. It still doesn't explain the migratory behaviors inhibited by these butterflies, as they aren't simply finding the direction in which to migrate or in their individual sense, emigrate (not immigrate). what would explain the process in which they find their respective places of roost, when their brains aren't capable of complicated decision making or sophisticated planning? Sensory capabilities to find direction is one thing but this is not the sole behavior observed in these butterflies.
I would first like to point out that my case is not necessarily made for a "collective unconscious" (as in Carl Jung's teachings), so much as a generic shared body of knowledge which transcends space and time (space-time). However and with that being said, I believe that our own intuition and subtle "psychic" abilities (our "gut") is the best case, as it doesn't rely on faith, though it does require us to deduce the origin by understanding other criteria explained here in this post.
No, as the two are not synonymous. I'm not saying that an individual soul doesn't exist, only that it doesn't influence the belief in an individual soul or that believing in an individual soul is easy.
I would say by going with your gut. That has always been my motto, if your gut is telling you something, you better listen. If you are looking for instructions on seeking these interactions, I can't give it to you because I have yet to figure that out, though I will certainly contact you if I ever do. Some people claim that they know how, though whether you want to invest your time and money in these people, is entirely up to you. I
would suggest that we just embrace the interactions whenever they occur.
I never disagreed that the behaviors of the Monarch butterfly weren't necessarily supernatural, though I do believe that the observed behaviors of the Monarch butterfly are best explained through an extra-dimensional body of knowledge.
No, I didn't know that you believe they are ripped off from the Theosophical Society, though I do now, thanks . However, that makes little
difference to my over-all argument and this is exactly why I didn't base my case on anyone's claims or any brand or discipline of mysticism. All of
that can easily be opposed by making such claims and any gleaned conclusions will ultimately come down to faith. My intentions were to bypass the
whole "he said, she said" aspects of faith in other peoples' word, in order to avoid an intellectually stalemated debate.
In this debate, my opponent has tried and failed to turn this into a "mystic versus skeptic" issue by either trying to shift focus to particular case studies on various peoples' claims and teachings of the mystical and supernatural or by trying to distract with the benefits and detriments of the industry that has sprang up around the notion. I purposefully maintained a heading away from this "mystic versus skeptic" debate because it is intellectually stifling and doesn't benefit the reader, as it only allows him or her to come to a conclusion based on faith. Instead, I zoomed way in and broke this issue down to the fundamentals by focusing on the abstract, so that the reader could use his or her own logic, reasoning and experiences to come to a solid conclusion. My opponent has yet to adequately counter my argument that there is a shared body of knowledge which transcends space and time and that we interact with this body of knowledge through various methods that we can all relate to. He has also failed to adequately counter my point that when we break the subject matter down to the abstract, we can deduce that this shared body of knowledge must exist.
I have enjoyed this debate with my opponent Skyfloating and I wish him good luck.
--airspoon
It has become abundantly clear that our knowledge is not created out of "thin air" (so to speak), whether it is shared through a body of knowledge which is inside of our three dimensions of space-time (such as a book, website, professor, university or prior experience) or whether it is shared through an extra-dimensional means (such as with intuition, psychic powers, creative intuition or innate behaviors). Regardless, this knowledge is not created out of "thin air".
When you learn something through a book or through experience, you aren't creating this knowledge out of "thin air", as this knowledge is being shared with you by the means and methods in which you learn it. So, when you gain knowledge from something that seemingly isn't in our space-time, such as intuition, subtle psychic powers ("gut" feelings) or creative inspiration, it isn't being created out of "thin air" either.
We have to be getting our knowledge from somewhere and usually this knowledge either comes from someone else (such as a teacher, a website or a book) or it comes from our experiences (such as a scientific experiment, a study or a consequence). However, how do we explain the knowledge that doesn't come from someone or something else and which doesn't come from our own experiences? It too isn't being created out of "thin air" and if we can agree that knowledge is learned instead of created, then we must agree that it has to exist somewhere so that we have access to it, however limited that access may or may not be, otherwise we would not be able to gain this knowledge.
The reader should ask him or herself if s/he has ever gained knowledge from what seemed like "thin air", then ponder where this information could have originated, while considering that knowledge isn't created but rather learned by the humble human mind. If this knowledge transcends space-time (thus is extra-dimensional), then this information would seem to be entering our mind from "thin air", though this would only be our perception, as we can only perceive the dimensional aspects of the three dimensions that we live in.
We can look at it this way, if we were stick figures that lived in a two-dimensional world (such as a sheet of paper) and a three-dimensional sphere (such as a gulf ball) were to enter our two-dimensional space (by being placed on or through the sheet of paper), then we would only be able to see this three dimensional object in our limited two-dimensions, thus we would only experience this sphere as a circle, while being unaware that it has an extra dimension. We would not be aware that this circle is actually something else entirely, a sphere.
Carl Sagan explains this notion perfectly, in his "journey through flatland".
This same limited dimensional view makes this knowledge (the knowledge itself or the body of knowledge) seem like it is coming out of thin air, when in reality, we only perceive it that way, as we can only perceive the three dimensions in which we live, as opposed to any extra-dimensional aspects of this body of knowledge. Just as we would only be able to experience the cross section of the hypothetical sphere that would intersect with our hypothetical two dimensional world, we can only experience the cross section of this body of knowledge that intersects with our three dimensional world, ultimately making it seem as if this knowledge was coming out of "thin air".
Back to Butterflies
My opponent tries to compare an insect brain with the brain of a mammal. To compare a dolphin, which has one of the most developed brains of the animal kingdom, to a butterfly is extremely bold, especially considering that the point was already made that Monarch butterflies do not simply find the direction of their destination and take off. In fact, as was pointed out earlier, the Monarch butterfly does not merely fly in the direction of its migratory destination, which in of itself would make this not an issue of its direction finding abilities. A butterfly's brain or central processing unit is not nearly large or developed enough to weigh complicated decisions, such as flying 200 miles to the east in order to avoid a large body of water 100 miles to the south, an obstacle that neither the butterfly nor its ancestors would have had to negotiate or contemplate. While a dolphin might possess the abilities of such complicated decisions making, an insect certainly does not.
Lets just suppose that the Monarch butterfly does have a biological ability to sense direction, which I believe it does. It still doesn't explain the migratory behaviors inhibited by these butterflies, as they aren't simply finding the direction in which to migrate or in their individual sense, emigrate (not immigrate). what would explain the process in which they find their respective places of roost, when their brains aren't capable of complicated decision making or sophisticated planning? Sensory capabilities to find direction is one thing but this is not the sole behavior observed in these butterflies.
Socratic Question 1: For the beneft of me and the reader: What is the best case for "the collective unconscious"?
I would first like to point out that my case is not necessarily made for a "collective unconscious" (as in Carl Jung's teachings), so much as a generic shared body of knowledge which transcends space and time (space-time). However and with that being said, I believe that our own intuition and subtle "psychic" abilities (our "gut") is the best case, as it doesn't rely on faith, though it does require us to deduce the origin by understanding other criteria explained here in this post.
Socratic Question 2: If you believe in some extra-dimensional library, isnt it also easy to believe in an individual soul?
No, as the two are not synonymous. I'm not saying that an individual soul doesn't exist, only that it doesn't influence the belief in an individual soul or that believing in an individual soul is easy.
Socratic Question 3: For the benefit of me and the reader: How can we best interact with this "extradimensional collective" or whatever it is you are arguing?
I would say by going with your gut. That has always been my motto, if your gut is telling you something, you better listen. If you are looking for instructions on seeking these interactions, I can't give it to you because I have yet to figure that out, though I will certainly contact you if I ever do
. Some people claim that they know how, though whether you want to invest your time and money in these people, is entirely up to you. I
would suggest that we just embrace the interactions whenever they occur. Socratic Question 4: Do you now agree that the behaviour of a Monarch Butterfly may also find a non-supernatural and non-collective-field explanation?
I never disagreed that the behaviors of the Monarch butterfly weren't necessarily supernatural, though I do believe that the observed behaviors of the Monarch butterfly are best explained through an extra-dimensional body of knowledge.
Socratic Question 5: Did you know that many of Edgar Cayces "ideas" are ripped off from the Theosophical Society?
No, I didn't know that you believe they are ripped off from the Theosophical Society, though I do now, thanks
. However, that makes little
difference to my over-all argument and this is exactly why I didn't base my case on anyone's claims or any brand or discipline of mysticism. All of
that can easily be opposed by making such claims and any gleaned conclusions will ultimately come down to faith. My intentions were to bypass the
whole "he said, she said" aspects of faith in other peoples' word, in order to avoid an intellectually stalemated debate. Afterword:
In this debate, my opponent has tried and failed to turn this into a "mystic versus skeptic" issue by either trying to shift focus to particular case studies on various peoples' claims and teachings of the mystical and supernatural or by trying to distract with the benefits and detriments of the industry that has sprang up around the notion. I purposefully maintained a heading away from this "mystic versus skeptic" debate because it is intellectually stifling and doesn't benefit the reader, as it only allows him or her to come to a conclusion based on faith. Instead, I zoomed way in and broke this issue down to the fundamentals by focusing on the abstract, so that the reader could use his or her own logic, reasoning and experiences to come to a solid conclusion. My opponent has yet to adequately counter my argument that there is a shared body of knowledge which transcends space and time and that we interact with this body of knowledge through various methods that we can all relate to. He has also failed to adequately counter my point that when we break the subject matter down to the abstract, we can deduce that this shared body of knowledge must exist.
I have enjoyed this debate with my opponent Skyfloating and I wish him good luck.
--airspoon
. I also enjoyed Airspoons style and attempts. He is a top-notch talker and thread-starter on ATS in general
so debating him here was certainly fun. I hope it was fun for you to read as well. Thank you for reading.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
